Whaley Estate Litigation

Whaley Litigation Newsletter Vol. 2 No. 4 July 2012




We continue to invite feedback, comments, enquiries and even contributions you wish to share.


Whaley Estate Litigation provides litigation, mediation and dispute resolution services to you or your clients in the following practice areas:

  • Will, Estate, Trust Challenges/Interpretations
  • Dependant Support Claims
  • Passing of Estate, Attorney, Guardian and Fiduciary Accounts
  • Capacity Proceedings
  • Guardianships
  • Power of Attorney Disputes
  • Consent and Capacity Board Hearings
  • End of Life Decision Making
  • Treatment Decision Disputes
  • Elder Law
  • Solicitor's Negligence
  • Opinions
  • Agency Services
  • Counsel to Estate Trustee(s) and Estate Trustee(s) During Litigation and other Fiduciaries
  • Section 3 Counsel under the Substitute Decisions Act
Please enjoy,


Kimberly A. Whaley
Whaley Estate Litigation

WEL News


1. Benjamin D. Arkin, Our Newest Litigation Associate


We blogged at the end of last month announcing that Ben joined us on June 25, 2012, but just in case you missed it, it is with great pleasure that Whaley Estate Litigation announces the newest addition of our litigation associates, Benjamin D. Arkin. 


Ben practices exclusively in the areas of Estate, Trust, Capacity, Fiduciary, and Power of Attorney litigation and dispute resolution.  Ben has been a litigator since 2006, practicing in Estate Litigation and Family Law.  In the past more than 6 years, Ben has gained significant litigation experience and therefore as to the experience that the WEL litigation team brings to its clients.  


Ben's contact details, including his Bio and long-form C.V., can be accessed on Ben's profile page on our website by clicking here

Ben has written in the area of Estates and Trusts and Family Law.  Some of Ben's publications and blogs will appear shortly on our website shortly.


Ben is the author of the case review below, regarding Ketcham v. Walton.


2. Kimberly Whaley Published Article


Canada Law Book, Thomson Reuters released last month the hard copy book entitled: "PROPERTY RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS UNDER ONTARIO FAMILY LAW".  Kimberly authored together with the assistance of her former associate, Chapter 2 entitled, "ESTATES ISSUES RELATING TO ONTARIO FAMILY LAW PROPERTY RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS."


This 2012 publication can be accessed by clicking here.


3. Kimberly Whaley Published Article


Carswell Thomson Reuters released the 2012-2013 book entitled: "ARMSTRONG ESTATE ADMINISTRATION, A SOLICITOR'S REFERENCE MANUAL".  Kimberly authored the chapter "FIDUCIARY ACCOUNTS AND COURT PASSINGS."


This 2012-2013 publication can be accessed by clicking here.


4. Kimberly Whaley Published Article


Advocates Quarterly Journal was published in June.  Kimberly authored, "THE INTERSECTION OF FAMILY AND ESTATES LAW; POST-MORTEM CLAIMS MADE BY MODERN DAY "SPOUSES", Volume 40, Number 1, June 20, 2012.


5. Ameena Sultan Published Article


Advocates Quarterly Journal was published in June.  Ameena authored, "CONSENT AND CAPACITY ISSUES FOR ESTATES PRACTITIONERS", Volume 40, Number 1, June 20, 2012.

Case Review


Ketcham v. Walton - The Invalidity of an Executor's Will Defence Fund by Benjamin D. Arkin, Litigation Associate


We briefly touched on Ketcham v. Walton in a recent blog post, but the topic of the validity of conditional gifts/ Will defence funds for executors, and executor neutrality warrants a closer look. In that case, a British Columbia resident tried a novel and creative approach to punishing his disinherited children for challenging his Will. The testator decided to disregard his three adult children and instead split up his $740,000 estate between charities and friends. He expected the children, from whom he had been estranged for many years, to make a claim under the British Columbia Wills Variation Act. In anticipation of this, he directed his executor to defend the Will at all costs. He explicitly authorized the executor to pay his legal fees out of the estate and to completely deplete the assets of the estate if necessary.


The executor applied to court for directions on whether the testator's instructions to defend the Will and to pay legal fees from the estate were valid. Unlike the validity of conditions on gifts, which the courts have considered from time to time over the course of two centuries, the validity of a scorched-earth-litigation instruction to an executor seems to have been one of first impression.


The court held that the instruction was invalid on three separate grounds:

  1. it is void at common law as being in terrorem;
  2. it is contrary to public policy because it denies the children recourse to the courts; and
  3. it offends the rule of law that an executor is neutral as between beneficiaries and has no preference in who may be entitled to a distribution from the estate.

Conditions in terrorem


As a general principle, a testator is free to leave property to whomever and however he or she pleases. This includes the right to impose conditions on gifts made in a will. However, the law recognizes certain restrictions on the testator's freedom to direct the living from beyond the grave. One such restriction, very relevant in today's environment of far-reaching dependant's support legislation and courts willing to apply it liberally, limits the effectiveness of conditions that punish a beneficiary for challenging the will or suing the estate.


As an example of such a condition, a testator might provide that a beneficiary receive a legacy, but that the legacy be revoked if the beneficiary challenges the validity of the Will.


The condition in this example would probably be void as being in terrorem. At common law, a condition not to dispute a Will may be invalid as being in terrorem if it does nothing other than to coerce a beneficiary. However, the doctrine does not typically invalidate a condition if it also provides for a gift over. The rule, which developed in 19th century English cases, is very technical. As explained in Bellinger v. Fayers, for a gift to avoid being invalidated by the in terrorem doctrine the following must be met:


The gift must be accompanied by an effective gift over which vests in the recipient on the condition being breached.  If there is no gift over, then the condition will be treated as merely in terrorem-that is a mere threat, and will be found to be void.  And nothing short of a positive direction of a gift over, of vesting in another, even in the case where the forfeited legacy falls in the Residue, will suffice.  There must be an express disposition made of what is to be forfeited. ... Thus the application of the general rule that a failed gift falls into Residue is insufficient for the purpose of the rule.[1]


The Court goes on to query whether a gift over always saves an otherwise in terrorem condition.[2] There is some confusion in the law about whether a conditional gift that would otherwise be void as in terrorem will necessarily be saved by the existence of a gift over, or if a gift over is merely prima facie evidence that the testator's intention was not only to coerce, but rather to fix a benefit for another person. The Court preferred the latter view and opined that extrinsic evidence is permissible to show that even where there is a gift over, the condition may still be void if it can be proved that the testator's intent was to coerce.


While the condition in a conditional gift that falls into residue is invalid as being in terrorem, a condition that explicitly directs a gift over to residue is prima facie valid.[3]


That the law distinguishes at all between coercive conditions with a gift over and ones without has been criticized, but it does seem to remain law.[4]


In Ketcham, the Court held that the testator's direction to the executor to resist his children's Wills Variation Act claims at all costs was in terrorem and therefore void.


There was little analysis on this point. The Court simply noted that the clause does not directly divest the children of an interest, but, has the same effect by denying them the fruits of their victory because the executor can spend all of the assets on the defence. The Court left open the possibility that the clause might not have been in terrorem if the testator had created a limited fund for fees; directed the executor to only take reasonable steps; or otherwise constrained the expenditure.


Public policy


The doctrine of invalidity of in terrorem conditions overlaps with the invalidity of conditions that are found to be contrary to public policy. The condition in the example above may also be viewed as void for being contrary to public policy. Conditions that incite a crime or a prohibited act; induce the separation of spouses; restrain marriage unreasonably; deprive a parent of control of their children; discriminate on prohibited grounds under provincial human rights legislation; or, violate the rule against perpetuities are usually found to be contrary to public policy.[5]


In the context of a "no contest" provision in a Will, there are two public policy grounds that may be offended:

  1. The public policy that individuals must not unilaterally be permitted to deprive the court of jurisdiction; and
  2. The public policy that dependants' of deceased persons must have recourse to the courts if the deceased did not provide proper and adequate support.

The public policy ground that keep the court's jurisdiction from being stripped will only be offended by a condition in a Will that purports to put the entire subject matter of the Will outside the court's purview.[6] A Will that curtails all actions, but, still allows a party to seek directions on interpretation from the court or one that removes only one cause of action (say, the right to challenge the validity of the Will) but not others (like, claims for support) will also not offend this ground of public policy.[7]


However, a restriction of the right to make a dependant's support claim is repugnant to public policy and will be invalid.[8] This is based on the public concern that dependants are properly supported. 


To return to the example above, it likely is not void against policy because: a) it curtails only will challenges and not other recourse to the court; and, b) it does not prevent a dependant from making a claim for support from the estate.


Ketcham directly applied the rule that a restriction on a dependant's claim for support under the applicable legislation offends public policy.[9]


Executors' neutrality


Justice Wong cited the British Columbia Supreme Court decision in Quirico v. Pepper Estate for the principle that an executor is required to remain neutral and not pick sides:


The primary duty of an executor is to preserve the assets of the estate, pay the debts and distribute the balance to the beneficiaries entitled under the Will or, in accordance with any order made under the Wills Variation Act. An executor should not pick sides between the beneficiaries and use estate funds to finance litigation on their behalf under the Wills Variation Act. It is a matter of indifference to the executor as to how the estate should be divided. He or she need only comply with the terms of the Will or any variation of it made by a court.[10]


For all these reasons, the law anticipates the executor will remain impartial between the opposing beneficiaries. Where proceedings are taken under the Act, all the executor need do is appear at the trial if required, and deliver to the court the Letters Probate and financial documents showing the value of the estate. Even this may be unnecessary if the parties agree to admit copies of those documents into evidence without the attendance of the executor.


It follows that the only purpose of Mr. MacKay appearing at the trial as solicitor for the executor was to deliver up the Letters Probate and the Estate Inventory. He could not act in an adversarial capacity against the plaintiff.


The executor quite naturally seized on the apparent qualification in Quirico that:


He or she [the executor] need only comply with the terms of the will...


In Ketcham, the testator had explicitly authorized the executor, who was just following the terms of the Will. Ketcham in that respect seems to be distinguishable from every other reported case of an executor entering the fray.[11] In all of the other cases, the executors' took it upon themselves to become defenders of the Will.[12] In all of those cases, the executor was found to be offside for failing to remain neutral.


Despite the lack of precedent and express provision in the will, the Court applied the rule in Quirico that the executor must remain neutral. Justice Wong held that the statement that an executor, "need only comply with the terms of the Will...," refers only to the distributive terms of the Will.


The executor in Ketcham made two other arguments unsuccessfully: First, he argued that there would be nobody else to defend the testator's wishes. The court found this to be immaterial to the executor's duty to remain neutral. An undefended action will still be scrutinized by the court anyways. Second, the executor argued by analogy that an executor is not always required to remain neutral as illustrated by the ability of a testator to waive the 'even-hand rule' in discretionary trusts and under powers of appointment. The Court rejected this argument as being specious.




Ketcham is not binding outside of British Columbia; a different court might find that a testator's autonomy is broad enough to include a right to create an "executor's Will-defence fund". No matter what the rule, Ketcham still highlights the underlying principles: the courts are reluctant to encourage frivolous litigation; protective of their jurisdiction;are careful to stress the fiduciary principle that estates exist for the benefit of their beneficiaries, not their personal representatives. A Will that runs afoul of these principles, whether by creating coercive or repugnant conditional gifts or an executor's Will defence fund, is likely to be subjected to a good, hard look.  


[1] 2003 BCSC 563 (CanLII) at para. 9.

[2] Ibid. at paras. 10-12.

[3] Kent v. McKay, 1982 CanLII 788 (BC SC), (1982), 139 D.L.R. (3d) 318 (B.C.S.C.)

[4] James MacKenzie, Feeney's Canadian Law of Wills, loose leaf 4th ed. (Toronto:  Butterworths, 2000) at para. 16.61 [Feeney], citing Lawson, "The Rule Against 'In Terrorem' Conditions: What Is It? Where Did It Come From? Do We Really Need It?" (2007), 25 ET&PJ 71 at 94.

[5] Feeney, supra note at para. 16.57.

[6] Kent, supra note at paras. 9-10.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid. at paras. 15-17.

[9] Ketcham, supra at para. 22.

[10] (1999), 22 B.C.T.C. 32 at paras. 15-17

[11] Quirico, ibid., Patton, Re, 1971 CarswellOnt 816, [1971] 3 O.R. 85, 19 D.L.R. (3d) 497; Hautakoski Estate, Re, 2009 CarswellBC 1731, 2009 BCSC 868, [2010] B.C.W.L.D. 226 (B.C. Master); Wilcox v. Wilcox, 2002 BCCA 574 (CanLII); Chan v. Lee, 2003 BCSC 513 (CanLII) rev'd on other grounds at 2003 BCSC 513 (CanLII); and Doucette v. Doucette Estate, 2008 BCSC 506 (CanLII).

[12] In Quirico, Patton and Hautakoski, the executors were as executors only; in Wilcox, Chan and Doucette, they were executor-beneficiaries.


Upcoming Programs


CLC CBA Vancouver, Estate Planning for Fractured Families: Spousal Claims, Predatory Marriages and Protecting the Vulnerable Client in an Era of Rapid Social Demographic Change.

August 12-14, 2012

Kimberly A. Whaley, Speaker

Info:  http://www.cba.org/CBA/sections_elder/main/


LSUC: The Administration of Estates 2012

September 13, 2012, Web repeat October 23, 2012

Chair, Kimberly A. Whaley


  • Jordan Atin, C.S., Atin Professional Corporation - Estate Accounting
  • Clare Burns, WeirFoulds LLP and Jasmine Sweatman, C.S., Sweatman Law Firm - The Annotated Administration Checklist
  • Caterina Galati, Senior Competence Counsel. The Law Society of Upper Canada - Professionalism
  • Hilary Laidlaw, C.S., Mccarthy Tetrault LLP and Scot Dalton, CEO, ERAssure Executor Liability Insurance - Estate Trustee Liability
  • Archie Rabinowitz,C.S., Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP - Limitation Periods
  • Martin Rochwerg, Miller Thomson LLP - Tax Planning

Info: http://ecom.lsuc.on.ca/cpd/product.jsp?id=CLE12-0090401


Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners (STEP) Program

Section TEL - Digital and Unusual Assets

September 19, 2012

Erin Cowling, Speaking on "Digital Assets"


OBA Trust and Estates Section Lunch Program

September 20, 2012

Ameena Sultan, Moderator


The World Congress on Guardianship / AGAC conference

Mid-October 2012

Info: http://agac2012.conorg.com.au/


LSUC Estate Litigation Practice Essentials 2012

October 30, 2012 - 9:00 am - 12:30 pm

Removal of Estate Trustees

Speaker: Kimberly Whaley, paper prepared by Kimberly Whaley and Erin Cowling
Info: http://ecom.lsuc.on.ca/cpd/product.jsp?id=CLE12-0101401 


LUSC Estates & Trusts Summit

November 14, 2012

Estate Claims Arising out of Remarriages

Speaker: Kimberly Whaley  


Canadian Centre for Elder Law (CCEL) 2012 World Elder Law Study Group Conference: Advocacy and Aging: From Storytelling to Systematic Change

November 15, 2012
Vancouver, B.C.  

"Telling the Story of Elder Abuse in the Courts"

Speakers: Kimberly Whaley and Ameena Sultan

Info: http://www.bcli.org/news/events/conferences


Estate Trustee Liability
Osgood Hall Law School, The Donald Lamont Centre
January 9, 2013

Chair: Kimberly Whaley 


LSUC Spring Program, 2013

Passing of Accounts: Best Practices



Make Your Golden Years Golden...Planning For and Advising on Personal Care Powers of Attorney and Advance Directives

Osgood Hall Law School, The Donald Lamont Centre

May 8, 2013 

Chair: Kimberly Whaley

Newsletter Archive

Past issues of our Newsletter can be viewed on-line by following this link to our Newsletter Archive:


Follow Our Blog via RSS Feed 

We continually add articles and posts to our blog and will post update notices via Twitter and on LinkedIn.  If you would like to follow our blog via our RSS feeds here is the link: 


Follow Us

 Follow us on Twitter


View our profile on LinkedIn


This newsletter is intended for the purposes of providing information only and is to be used only for the purposes of guidance.  This newsletter is not intended to be relied upon as the giving of legal advice and does not purport to be exhaustive.


Newsletter Contents
WEL News
Case Review: Ketcham v. Walton
Upcoming Programs
Newsletter Archive

Quick Links


Contact Info

10 Alcorn Avenue, 

Suite 301
Toronto, ON, M4V 3A9
Tel: (416) 925-7400 
Fax: (416) 925-7464


Kimberly A. Whaley
C.S., TEP, LL.M.
(416) 355-3250

Mark Handelman
(416) 355-3254

Ameena Sultan
(416) 355-3258


Erin C. Cowling
(416) 355-3262

Benjamin D. Arkin
(416) 355-3264


Deborah Stade
(416) 355-3252


Bibi Minoo
(416) 355-3251


Michelle Shikatani
(416) 355-3255

Join Our Mailing List

If you were forwarded this newsletter and would like to receive future editions please join our mailing list by simply clicking the link above and completing the form.  Thank you. 

Whaley Estate Litigation